|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Way to Debunk | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
You can't have given yourself much time to look at the blogsite I linked you to. I don't expect you to debate a website obviously, but I think it has a lot to offer on the subject of how science is practiced today.
I'm just here to describe how science can be used to examine claims in an objective and systematic way. And I'm here to tell you that this is an inaccurate statement to make to anyone because science is not objective. It cannot be, because it is a human construct. The idea of pure objectivity is (sorry to bring this up again) a Platonic concept which cannot be applied to human reality. Part of the bias that many scientists bring to their work is the belief that science is capable of explaining everything, if not now then in the future; and that anything outside the realms which it can measure is delusional or worthless. Plenty of people here say exactly that about philosophy and religion. Another bias is that anecdotal evidence is worthless. I've heard the reasons for this many times over and I've been reminded that large groups of people can be deluded about an experience; and I agree that such instances can and do happen. However, because of the potential for erroneous evidence from these sources, all of it is rejected. Did you read the quote I gave in my previous post from William James? I found this very relevant to the discussion at hand:
He worried about a time when people would become "indifferent to science because science is so callously indifferent to their experiences." He worried that a close-minded community of science could become a kind of cult itself, devoted to its own beliefs and no more. Have you considered that it is this kind of arrogant, dismissive attitude toward people's experiences that can actually drive them away from an interest in science and one in fundamentalism? I have spoken to a number of creationists who say they have had "supernatural" experiences, and these occurred before they were "born again." I think they knew that science would tell them that their experiences were mistakes or delusions, and scientifically worthless. Isn't everyone who has had such an experience, afraid of skeptics who will laugh at them and call them crazy? Those who are convinced that their experience was real are in need of some guidance. Religion offers it but damned if science does, the way it is practiced today. Maybe one of the best ways to debunk would be for science to collectively value people's experiences more and show a genuine interest in studying them. Surely the methodology of science is good enough to expose hoaxes and delusions, and in the process maybe we could learn some fascinating things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It does, and it has. The problem is, true believers, such as yourself, apparently have a profound emotional need to continue in their belief despite both a lack of positive evidence to support those beliefs and quite a bit of contradictory evidence that tends to disprove the validity of their beliefs. All you've done, LindaLou, is defend your irrational beliefs, cast aspersions and make accusations. I'll just repeat what I've said several times already. Science is science. The basic method is the same for Geologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, and yes, even medical researchers and people running drug trials. If you think medical researchers are so incredibly biased such that their conclusions simply mustn't be trusted, then how can you trust that Paleontologists and Geologists and Geneticists are telling you the truth about Evolution?
quote: We hear that very same complaint from Creationists when we tell them that the Genesis account of creation is not based in reality. Why is a bias in favor of empiricism OK with you when speaking of Evolutionary science but a terrible flaw when discussing scientific health claims?
quote: Again, that is not the case, as you have been told several times now. Anecdote is where science can start. In fact, my husband is currently conducting research which is investigating anecdotal medical reports of a particular syndrome being caused by a particular medical treatment, and all the results thus far are looking as though the anecdotes are mistaken. The "hunches" that people had about it do not seem to be supported at this time. If somebody told you that they had found a modern hammer completely embedded in a rock that was found in a geologic layer dating to the Cretaceous, and therefore the Earth is only 10,000 years old like it says in the Bible, would you think their anecdote was a wothwhile contribution to the body of Geological knowledge? This goes back to the question I asked before. How do you know you've arrived at the truth after you've followed your inner voice and hunches? Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Those who are convinced that their experience was real are in need of some guidance. Yes. They need to be guided to the realization that their experiences weren't real.
Religion offers it but damned if science does, the way it is practiced today. And, yet, religion results in bloodshed and ignorance, and science solves human problems and helps people. I don't think that's just coincidence.
However, because of the potential for erroneous evidence from these sources, all of it is rejected. It's the "Boy who cried wolf" problem. Anecdotal experience is like a pipe, out of which is flowing evidence; but almost all of it is bad evidence. It's wrong. So the output of that pipe gets ignored - because there's no way to tell the good evidence from the bad, and most of it is bad. Most of it has been proven to be bad. The only reasonable course is to ignore it all in favor of more reliable pipes - like the pipe of scientific inquiry - out of which flows evidence that is almost always accurate. There's no way to tell an accurate anecdote from a bad one, except by comparing the anecdotes to more reliable sources and rejecting the one that doesn't fit. There's no such thing as a good anecdote that contradicts the scientific consensus. There can't be. We'd have no way to know whether or not that anecdote was reliable except in terms of how consistent it was with the science.
Surely the methodology of science is good enough to expose hoaxes and delusions, and in the process maybe we could learn some fascinating things. But it's already done that. That's how we know supernatural experiences aren't real - they've already been debunked. And we did learn some fascinating things. And so would you, if you looked into it with objectivity and a lack of preconceptions except those formed from good evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Love ya MBG
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The topic is how to debunk, not the nature of science. In case someone wants to propose a thread where LindaLou's comments could be addressed, I'll be sure to check in a couple times during the afternoon to see if there's something that can be promoted.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The topic is how to debunk, The first thing to do is stick with your strengths, facts and evidence. The second thing is not to get sucked in to their fantasy. Don't discuss the bible for instance, because anyone can interpret it any number of ways (and people do), but there is no way to validate one opinion over another, so it just becomes a shouting match. Third (looks in mirror) keep it brief, simple. Leave the exposes for a new thread opening. Forth keep focus on what the topic is and hold to it. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Quick caveat here too. Wherever I go here I seem to attract a pile-up (funny, that). When that happens I can't promise I can address every post; and if some are saying similar things, I will attempt to address those points in one go. I don't have the sort of time for this that I used to, there are other threads here I'd like to talk on, creationists to debate elsewhere, and life in general. Thanks for your understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
You seem to be enjoying yourself on the other forum RAZD. I've certainly enjoyed reading your posts. It looks like the opposition is starting to melt away due to lack of ways to rebut what you are saying
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: If at some point I start talking about truth then you can start questioning my statements about truth, but that time hasn't come yet, and is very unlikely to.Science is the best way we have of understanding the way the real world works... What I've actually said about science is that it is the best method we have for telling us what is most likely true about reality. Aren't you really just saying that science is good at commenting upon what it can comment upon. And nothing more. Not that what it comments on is necessarily even remotely true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
iano writes: Aren't you really just saying that science is good at commenting upon what it can comment upon. And nothing more. Not that what it comments on is necessarily even remotely true. I'd love to discuss the nature of science if that's what people want to discuss, but this thread is about the nature of debunking, so someone will have to propose another thread. So far, no proposals. If we were talking about debunking, then I'd say that debunking involves examining how well claims correspond to reality, which is something that science does very well. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
quote: Which was essentially my point. What you are really stating is this (by way of query) "how well do claims conform to (the extent of the) reality which science comments upon?" You are not likely to state that the extent of reality upon which science comments need be the extent of reality. Nor that is need be more than but a fraction of it. Do you agree that "debunked" should be seen in this limited (to what extent no one can scientifically prove (but so what??)) light? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You seem to be enjoying yourself on the other forum RAZD. I've certainly enjoyed reading your posts. It looks like the opposition is starting to melt away due to lack of ways to rebut what you are saying. Yep, no head banging yet (on my side anyway) . As a technique to apply to this topic ... DO(1) pick a single point that you know well, (2) focus on it to the exclusion of other points made, (3) keep repeating the issue until you get either meltdown or a response. (4) and only address the parts of the various responses that address the issue. (5) have fun. It ain't worth it if it ain't fun. DON'T(1) play their game (2) argue about the bible (3) feel you have to answer every reply, no matter how well written. (4) post when you are tired or upset Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Good advice for talking on this forum too. Thank you. I hope people won't be offended but I really can't respond to every post when the pile-up happens, though of course I read each one. Last time I attempted to do so I got flustered and it just wasn't helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4331 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
I'd say that debunking involves examining how well claims correspond to reality, which is something that science does very well. I'll try to focus more on the topic here too. I agree, we've been discussing the nature of science, which is OT. I'd particularly like to respond to Crashfrog's comments on another thread. Referring to the above quote from you though, I think it is essential that you define what you mean by "reality." You've said here and there that some things cannot be studied by science. Do they fit your same definition of reality as those things that you believe can be studied by science? I ask because I think many people honestly do want to look for answers in science but science does not always acknowledge the legitimacy of their experiences. So they have to look elsewhere. You aren't going to debunk the kinds of claims they end up making because they feel the science you hold up as such a beacon of objective reality, tells them that they are crazy. It's always going to be there in their minds: "I saw a ghost/had a spiritual experience/had a precognitive vision -- I am convinced of its reality -- and all your science can do is tell me that I've got a screw loose. Well, screw your science then." A different approach is called for here IMHO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
If you can see it, touch it, hear it, taste it or smell it, either directly or indirectly through instrumentation, then you can bring scientific observation and experiment to bear upon it.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024